Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12,794 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,125 profile views
  1. Resurrection Question

    The notion of perfection meaning "complete" and therefore uchanging is a Neoplatonic pagan Greek idea Were that true, God and Christ, who are pefect, could never progress. I have no problem with the notion of a dynamic perfection where all ACTS are "perfect" with ongoing change. I see God as perfect in his acts- he always does the "best thing" while making constant changes, and adding to his kingdoms. To me a perfect body would grow and change perfectly without error or departure from its plan. We must be in a constant state of becoming better in my view, and that includes God. "Eternal Progression" just logically demands that.
  2. Satan's reaction to Moses

    I think it was definitely a bad day for lucifer. I am not sure about his teeth- he might have had dentures, but as this photo shows, he was bald
  3. I like that they are judging us by how our beliefs "work" On the other hand, our doctrine is vague and we are not that definite about what is "true and false". The debates on this board show that pretty clearly. But I think that's a good thing when it talks about pretending to know the mind of God perfectly while still being a mortal.
  4. Resurrection Question

    nevermind- I misread a comment
  5. God is Man and man is god. Is there a Meta-Modern Mormon out there who understands the power of that for post moderns?
  6. I don't know how you think it is possible to speak of things outside of language without using language. Can you form an English sentence without using English? Language is literally all we have to talk about if we are using language. It is inconceivable for me to think of it in any other way. As Francis said: "Teach the gospel continuously. When necessary use words." That is Alma 32. The words maybe the seed but the seed must be planted for it to grow without further interference of language. The seed must be planted to grow what is real within our hearts. The fruit it bears exists in the reality of how we live our lives but is itself beyond language. It is testimony in our hearts. Brother Wittgenstein was ultimately a Mystic and so am I. Long Live Mormon fideism! Maybe someday I will actually learn how to stop talking about it.
  7. Resurrection Question

    Literalism is death. Giving it up and having no part of that dead body is resurrection.
  8. Baptism ceasing? NT Scholars

    1. No 2. I knew that. ManyCatholics would disagree. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scapular Does your Pastor wear anything to designate his office? Many Protestant pastors do.
  9. Yep 78 is right. https://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/09/absolute-truth?lang=eng Yep Plato is embedded in all religious discourse in the West - that is why we need a restoration of theology which has not yet happened obviously. For those so inclined I think that Dewey's "Reconstruction of Philosophy" And this goes to the systematic theology problem. Out with Neoplatonism and scholasticism and in with hermeneutics If language cannot speak accurately about "reality" then alleged theology goes out the window as poetry. That's nice but we cannot take it as philosophy or an attempt to convey TRVTH etched in stone- only scriptural interpretation So in short in my opinion that is where Mormonism needs to be headed- scriptural interpretation, and taking scripture as matter unorganized and expressing new perspectives on how it should be interpreted. So stated like that, we can do a kind of systematic story about out personal vision of what the scriptures are about. Hypothetical example: "I think Genesis can be interpreted in terms of the beginnings of human life where emerge from the womb creating for us 'light" and then we enter the trials of life as Adam and Eve and we learn....." etc One could therefore have a "systematic hermeneutic or interpretation" of scriptures in a consistent way without claiming it was "the way things really are". Any theology which claims to tell of "things as they are" cannot be supported. Or it could take the form in orthopraxis of something like spiritual exercises we have found works to enable us to become closer to God. And that's my story and I am stickin to it PS I think Peirce ultimately has a correspondence theory of truth and you don't. I think that is where we disagree with about Peirce. But we have been around and around about that!
  10. Progression Between Kingdoms

    Hey, there you go. Give this man a cigar! You are right- this is a coherent explanation. Thanks for showing me a solution to make both work The only problem is that it is similar to the "reincarnation" view that some have which conflicts with the idea of one probation- one time through for everyone- get it right or miss out. But then we have the problem of the definition of "eternity"- I suppose But this is what makes Mormonism really- we have so many "doctrines" and beliefs that we have quite a lot of choices in which one works for us. And this is also quite similar to the idea of Buddhist Chakras- and the Ouroboros- I should have figured out your position just from your avatar- sorry asleep at the switch! For the Buddhist reference and for those who are not getting this see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavacakra For the science minded suppose there are multiple eternities - like multiple big bangs and each big bang = 1 'eternity'- big bang, collapse into a singularity, big bang etc. So anyway- yep thanks this works as a theory which is coherent. So it is up to us to get a testimony or not. Thanks for the edification.
  11. Progression Between Kingdoms

    OK well as usual then we are on the same page though I do not find it "interesting". So why am I here? Heck if I know. Probably self-flagellation.
  12. Progression Between Kingdoms

    Look- I personally believe in eternal progression and honestly look at all this kingdom stuff as metaphorical poetry saying "If you are good, you get all God has. If you have half-good you only get a portion of what God wants you to have". Literalists always want every jot and tittle made perfectly clear but that doesn't work with God. The question for me is to create a coherent interpretation out of the jumble of all these quotes and the bottom line is the BODY PROBLEM which no one addresses. Do you switch bodies when you switch kingdoms? This is not about "what really happens" after we are resurrected - not for me anyhow. Anyone can get their own testimony on that one. I am not even sure our bodies need to change. I don't see why one could not just get more zapped or whatever happens when one qualifies. But that is not part of a coherent theory of the afterlife. We ain't got one. So as usual it's Orthopraxis, be good and see how it turns out. So I don't think it is wise to build an entire gospel interpretation on the sandy foundation of the word "TO" which is just a mite ambiguous https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to
  13. Progression Between Kingdoms

    Here was your J Ruben Clark quote Where does it say they can progress between kingdoms? It doesn't. This is the same kind of quote we see again and again here on this thread that allegedly says something it does not actually say. It says that the unrighteous may attain the "destiny" of one who is righteous. What does that mean? Interp 1 which excludes kingdom jumping: Suppose I am a bad guy and on the other side "get religion" and end up being as "righteous" as someone in some level of the CK. So maybe that individual gets what the individual in the CK gets without BEING IN the CK. Why not? Some self-taught scholar may be at the level of one who has a Phd but NOT BE a Phd! He cannot teach at a university, get published easily etc. He has attained the intellectual level of a Phd- the intellectual "destiny" of knowing all a Phd knows and still NOT BE a Phd. Interp 2 which excludes kingdom jumping: Here Elder Clark is describing what happens in the spirit world. Someone "unrighteous" enters the spirit world in spirit prison. There he works hard and repents and "nevertheless, the unrighteous will have their chance, and in the eons of the eternities that are to follow, they, too, may climb to the destinies to which they who are righteous and serve God, [after having their vicarious ordinances done in the temple, so they can attain the resurrection of one in the Celestial Kingdom and ] have climbed to those eternities that are to come. So how are those two possibilities excluded from what Elder Clark says here?
  14. This was dictated So it is probably full of punctuation mistakes. Well I must say that Thanksgiving week is probably not the best time for me to get involved in such a discussion. And yes you are right that on its face Rorty's view is not directly compatible with the gospel, especially in Mirror of Nature. He clearly moderated however in later years especially in the book the Future of Religion. But on the other hand the idea that truth is only applicable within an intersubjective community discussion, makes religious truth just as justifiable as any other kind of Truth. The only theory of truth I think which works today is some form of the deflationary theory of Truth. I don't think there is another coherent way of thinking about truth other than some form of deflationary theory. If there was or if I could come up with one I'm sure my opinion would change. And I gave up academic philosophy because essentially I believe that Wittgenstein is right. Ironically I did not want to spend the rest of my life proving that other people's philosophical Concepts we're simply linguistic confusions and teaching Plato 101 to undergrads. Ironically of course here I am on this board doing just that. I mean the co-eds were kind of cute but then I became Mormon so forget about that idea. So I guess truth does win out over wine women and Power, even if it is deflationary. (And man, there are some wisecracks there I won't touch.... ) So we have Alma 32 but let's make sure we mix it also with D&C 93 that truth exists in spheres. Look up President Kimball speaking on absolute truth I think it was 1998. It is not Rorty but on the other hand President Kimball was not trained in Rorty either. Gladly enough. So in your Triad of wine women and Power, we must remember that in Alma 32 he is speaking of truth winning out over the world. Incomplete got to go now talk to you later. Edit completing post: So let me get directly to the point of MY INTERPRETATION OF how I see Rorty working with Alma. The key is the affirmation of "intuition" as opposed to the attempt at "linguistic representation". This is why I use that Rorty quote for my siggy. For me "intuition" is a direct "raw feel" unmediated by language. Rorty says those are impossible. Here Rorty and I part company. BUT he is useful for the demonstration that language does not represent "reality" I say they are not only possible BUT raw feels ARE what we call "reality". I see the color red. The color red is NOT the word" red" which in no way "corresponds" to the direct intuitive experience of "red" Wittgenstein shows this with optical illusions- the rabbit and the duck illusion for example Here I think is Rorty's most concise explanation of what he wants to avoid: Page 21-22 of Contingency Irony and Solidarity. Full PDF of the book- much clearer than "Mirror of Nature" http://pages.uoregon.edu/koopman/courses_readings/rorty/rorty_CIS_full.pdf So how on earth does this make life easier for the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Let's look at Rorty now as the enemy against whom we want to defend- in this most convincing and sophisticated statement of the deflationary theory of truth, essentially saying there IS no truth? Do we actually have "wordless" experiences?? Notice that Rorty's entire argument is based on us NOT having "wordless experiences" and yet I would argue that indeed the "burning in the bosom" - or really any experience of the world "out there" IS in fact wordless. There are countless examples- but I am now just giving the bare bones of the argument. MY argument hinges on my view that we do have direct experience not associated with words. In the instant of perception we feel awe or surprise or anything- note the word "FEEL" BEFORE we have a word for it. My favorite description is driving over a hill and instantly being struck by a magnificent vista of nature- the most beautiful landscape you have ever seen. Or step outside of the tent on a clear night in the wilderness and look at the stars? What is your reaction? I would say first sheer awe. Perhaps we might say, after amoment of contemplation something vacuous like "Beautiful!" the most ambiguous non- word in English. Or perhaps "Wow"! Hardly a "representation of reality" or an attempt at doing so. So for me. what Rorty would call "non linguistic intuition" remains viable. For me - that instant IS reality- it NOT it' representation. Raw feels and raw perception IS the only reality we can know, and where Rorty goes wrong. So if Rorty is WRONG about intutions - direct experience or raw feelings- then he is wrong about the possibility of a testimony because that IS direct unmediated non linguistic experience. It is Intelligence flowing into our hearts, It is peace, it is calm, it is the feeling of love and the feeling that something is "right" WITHOUT words intervening. In short, if Rorty is wrong we can experience God wordlessly But he IS completely right concerning language! Because reality is raw feels, words cannot REPRODUCE reality. The word "red" is how we communicate the raw experience- the perception - of the "color red" but it is a paltry black and white squggle on a page allegedly corresponding to the rich, warm, bright glorious color which is also sometimes scary when it causes us to perceive "blood". The word is not and can never be the experience of red. We cannot use words to communicate what red is to someone who is color blind. So what does this have to do with Alma? Alma essentially affirms intuition and raw feels as producing more positive intuitions and raw feels, and accurately predicting what makes us happy- and happiness is of course another raw feel or direct experience in our hearts. Alma 32 28 So IF Rorty's best argument against God is based on the idea that we cannot experience feelings wordlessly, and we CAN in fact experience things wordlessly, we can throw out that part of his argument and see that that leaves a huge loophole in his argument that allows us to accept testimony as a raw emotional experience and yet we can retain the rest of his argument about reality and words. So the worst he can throw at us is that we cannot experience without words? At the worst those are only words themselves which also do not correspond to reality!!!! Essentially he is an anti-realist who believes that words do not "correspond to reality" His essential argument for that is expressed in my siggy below and we need not address that right now. BUT THAT IS AN ARGUMENT WE NEED TO COMBAT SCIENTISM So if we retain that portion of Rorty's argument that helps us and yet affirm Alma's point about intuition or the spirit being raw "reality" as we perceive it, That means that we can experience God directly but not speak about it except in approximations which can never "correspond" to what God "really is" And as Rorty shows below the only way we can communicate is through language which is an imperfect way of representing reality- so what we SAY about God is automatically wrong, and to be verified subjectively by each individual for themselves. AND then we can see scientific knowledge as a wholly different language game for an entirely different way of perceiving reality by eliminating feelings from the start. The presumption of science from the beginning is that it is not about values or feelings or anything about which we feel PASSION, it is a language game for a community intentionally being DISPASSIONATE and dealing with pure observation from the get- go. And so we meet Kuhn. Science is not about "reality" it is about organized paradigms and theories that work for awhile until evidence causes us to change So science and religion are two different ways of intentionally seeing the world- they are perspectives. There is no one perspective that always produces positive results- we must see truth and reality within the contexts of pragmatic use. We use religion to give us purpose in life and a sense of knowledge of where we belong in the universe. Morality and ethics are linked there and help us in the same area. Science is about how things work - it is more about the mechanics of the world and religion is about the purpose we create for ourselves. Different spheres. Well thats a longy. I hope it helps. Gonna be pretty busy from now out but I will pick up the thread when I can.
  15. Golly. Thems some big words an stuff. Whare's that dang thinking cap at, anyway...... ? More to come if I can find it....